Character infobox title[]
We had a discussion on Thor's talk page about the correct use of infobox title field. Two preferred ways were using a common or current name and I think that it would be beneficial to choose between those. You could of course vote for other options also. Please indent your replies with an asterisk and bold your preferred way for helping to keep track of a discussion. —Mrkermit (talk) 10:11, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
EDIT:In the case I was little unprecise with options, I want to clarify that common name means best-known alias or real name and current name means current alias. In our initial discussion those were Thor and Odinson. —Mrkermit (talk) 16:44, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- Common names are more recognizable for readers. —Mrkermit (talk) 10:11, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- Don't feel the existing system of Current need be changed. -- Annabell (talk) 10:31, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer using the current system. Using the common names would be inaccurate as there's characters who change alias all the time, like Hank Pym. Listing him as still being Ant-Man (or whatever is more recognizable for readers) would be totally inaccurate and would also confuse readers.
--The Many-Angled One (talk) 15:23, May 21, 2016 (UTC)- Poor Hank has had so many aliases that his common title can only be Hank Pym. —Mrkermit (talk) 16:44, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- Current. Common names are what disambigs are for. --Spencerz (talk) 15:30, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry but I don't understand, we have disambiguation pages for every kind of names. Besides, I don't see how those are connected to infobox titles. —Mrkermit (talk) 19:13, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have much to add since others already said what I think, but yeah I say keep the Current system. (SunGodKizaru (talk) 15:48, May 21, 2016 (UTC))
- I choose current as well.--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 16:38, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- Reading the replies, I may have been little unclear what I meant. If that's so, I'm sorry and will be using my limited understanding of English as an excuse. I hope you agree with a little addition to an opening. I was just feeling that current was understood as a current system and I'm not sure we even have one. —Mrkermit (talk) 16:44, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
- Current name is better in my opinion, my reasoning is basically all of the above Copeinator123 (talk) 18:23, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
- I vote current, since it needs to be clear what said character's alias is so far in the continuity, until there comes a point where they revert back to their old, or change to a new alias. KalKent (Anton) (Earth-1218) (talk) 10:47, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree completely but we have Current alias field for that. —Mrkermit (talk) 19:13, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with current. Artful Dodger (talk) 11:54, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
Consensus was quite clear so I updated the guide. Unfortunately, I'm not any more convinced about the policy than before this discussion. There were only three arguments for the use of current alias and I found them unrelated or very weak. So even as the policy is already decided, I'd hope that discussion continues so that it would give me at least some reasons why we have opted this policy. —Mrkermit (talk) 19:13, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
Appearances section[]
I added a new section based on discussions: Thread:989722, Thread:1007006, and Thread:1024140. –Mrkermit (talk) 03:38, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
Hierarchy[]
What's the hierarchy when it comes to mentions versus minor appearances? For example, if a photo of a character is shown and the character is also mentioned in the same issue, but they don't appear, should their appearance for that issue be categorized as 'photo', 'mentioned', or both? Ootcs (talk) 11:20, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
- If a character has a minor appearance but is also mentioned, it's not necessary to list the mention. I'll add it to the guidelines for future reference.
--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 12:33, May 7, 2019 (UTC)